The issue at hand might well be the inability of some folk to deal with the complexities of the real world. — Banno

Most people have some difficulty to face in life. A makeover of one's appearance (whether it's in the form of hiring a stylist to choose one a new wardrobe, having a facelift, or a sex change operation) doesn't solve anything in the long run.

The problems that can be solved by changing one's external appearance (whether it's dying one's hair or changing external sexual characteristics) are not problems worth solving.

It's just subversion of rationality by the obstruction of one of the most basic concept of life

Of course it's not possible, it's about "accepting" it — InvoluntaryDecorum

Transsexuals only want _some_ of the physical traits of the sex they are transitioning into.

A man chemically and surgically "transitioning" "into" a woman wants only some female traits, but not all. He doesn't want to have a body that will eventually go through menopause, lose hair and get brittle bones. He also doesn't want to have a body that has the ability to become pregnant even when the owner of said body doesn't want it to. Hell, he surely doesn't want to have a body that readily accumulates fat and leaks blood every few weeks. No, he just wants some of the socially and economically accentuated perks of "femininity", but not others.

Hence transsexualism is suspicious.

So where does trans fit in here? I think the idea that one must change one’s body to fit one’s psychological gender is only necessary in a culture which
believes that behavior should match genitalia according to rigid norms. In a society which has no such belief , one is free to recognize that body sex and psychological gender are inextricably intertwined such that it becomes incoherent to claim that one was born in the wrong body. — Joshs

The notion that someone was born in the wrong body is fairly common. One has the "wrong" hair color, the "wrong" height, the "wrong" eye color, the "wrong" mass and distribution of fat or muscle, and so on. The idea that one is "a male born in a female body" or a "female born in a male body" is on this spectrum of rejecting one's current body and wanting another body.

It's simply indicative of our society's obsession with appearance, with the superficial. Giving in to this obsession is not virtuous.

Let’s take as an example traits within modern Western societies, such as a boy growing up with a constellation of behaviors he has no control over and which causes other boys to label him a sissy. Let’s say he would list these behaviors as including speaking with a lisp, walking and throwing a ball like a girl, playing with dolls instead of toy soldiers and guns. Let’s say he also is attracted exclusively to other males and connects this attraction. with the other behaviors which he regards as feminine. Let’s say further that he does a bit of neurophysiological research and suspects that the constellation of ‘feminine’ behaviors that he was apparently born with are not random or independent of each other but instead are all the result of a kind of brain ‘wiring’ that determines psychological gender (masculine vs feminine behavior and sexual attraction). — Joshs

I wouldn't say any of that.

Children accusing another child of being a sissy is not limited to boys. Girls, too, will call another girl a sissy, if they deem her weak or incompetent.
Effective parents and teachers assume that a child should have control over his or her behaviors, that's the whole point of raising a child.

It's convenient to conceive of a person's identity as somehow a given, a neurological, physiological given. Because this way, we feel justified to like or dislike the person; we feel that our persistent liking or disliking of someone is justified.
Conceiving of a person's identity as somehow a given feeds our general craving for externalization and our reticence to take responsibility for our thoughts, feelings, desires. By taking such responsibility I mean seeing our thoughts, feelings, desires as constructed, conditioned, as subject to arising and cessation, and subject to our volition, not as givens.

We actually learn to take such responsibility early on (a child needs to do so in order to do his homework, for example), but people vary in how consistently they do this.

Given the stark differences between the religions, I’m going to need a stronger argument to be convinced of their compatibility.. Can any of you provide a stronger argument for how someone could be Buddhist and Christian at the same time? — tryhard

Not at the same time. I've known a few self-styled "Christian Buddhists". It seems that the way they made them "compatible" is that they simply took from each religion what they liked, and rejected the rest. Where they felt Christianity was lacking, they added Buddhism (meditation), and where they felt Buddhism was lacking, they added Christianity (a definitive stance on who gets saved and who doesn't).

Fundamental to such ecclecticism is the conviction that by picking and choosing as one pleases, one can still patchwork together an effective program for happiness. I suppose this is very ego-affirming, and that's why people do it.

Yours is a simple demand, that folk conform to you expectations.

In the end, the only genuine response to your posts is pathos. It is tragic that you have had to adopt the attitude you have, that you cannot accept the divergence of others. — Banno

You demand that people conform to your expectations.

Even at a philosophy forum, for you, some things are simply off limits, as if this would be a watercooler conversation.

If you would to be understood, be understanding. — Banno

You're not understanding. Why should others be understanding?

The question isn’t whether there are individual
differences in personality. It is whether, a robust gender-correlated difference can be extracted , above and beyond these individual differences that you cite. Study after study shows such robust gender-related differences in many different mammals. We already know of the link between testosterone and aggression. — Joshs

The question is whether they behave a certain way because they are female or male, or whether there are alternative explanations.

Can chivalry and virtue make a comeback in today’s world or is it truly dead? — Dermot Griffin

They are about as realistic as



And fictional ideals is probably all that Stoicism and Bushido ever were anyway.

There is so much divergent thinking around what it is to be a Buddhist, it seems almost anything is possible in this space. — Tom Storm

Some say that "Buddhism" (note the ism) is a construct of Western religiology and culturology, and that it has no equivalent in what we call "traditionally Buddhist countries".

In those countries, one normally has an affiliation with a particular lineage, monastery, teacher, without necessarily having any sense of a "bigger picture" of how this particular lineage, monastery, teacher is part of something bigger, a "religion".


What is it to be a Buddhist? If anything, it's to live up to a construct of Western religiology and culturology.

"Their identity". We're at a philosophy forum. Identity is a construct.
— baker

And you would refuse to allow trans people to construct their identity, insisting that you do it for them. — Banno

Nonsense. More of your bad faith.

Identity is a construct, it's a means to an end. And we live in a world where resources are limited. This is why it is only prudent to construct one's identity in line with that.

No; I want children not to feel so disenfranchised that they try to kill themselves. I want the same for trans adults.

Ordinary people don't simply get that kind of enfranchizement, they have to earn it, by submitting to social norms.

Why should one category of people be granted that enfranchizement for free?

If you would to be understood, be understanding. You may deal with the contents of your underwear as you please. Extend that privilege to others.

You've always had the American strategy: The best defense is a good offense. You do that. You start with that. You throw the first stone. Then you cry foul.

“From the data included in this review, it appears that males tend to be more aggressive and bolder than females, whereas a lower level of intraspecific sociability in males was reported. Females seem more inclined to interspecific social interactions with humans in tasks that require cooperative skills, whereas males appear more likely to interspecific social play. Studies of spatial skills underlined a higher flexibility in resorting to a particular navigation strategy in males in an outdoor environment; however, females appear to be better at spatial learning tasks in restricted areas. Lateralization studies seem to support the view that males are preferentially left-pawed and females are preferentially right-pawed; however, some studies have failed to replicate these results. Reports on visual focusing rank females as superior in focus on specific social and physical stimuli. In olfactory monitoring activity, only male dogs are able to discriminate kin. For other stimuli, the use of olfactory recording may be related to the differential relevance that olfactory signals have for males and females.” — Joshs

Appear, seem.

I find that so much depends on the relationship one has with the animal, however short the interaction. The same animal will act very differently, depending on what human is around and how the human behaves.

For example, one of our male cats gets relatively little cuddling from us, because the rest of the family somehow believe that it is unbecoming to cuddle with a male cat, but much more appropriate to cuddle with a female cat. I surmise that it is because of this that the male is more socially withdrawn than the females, and not because of something inherently male.
I've witnessed female cats fight ferociously over territory.

Well, there's a lot I'd like to know that I think can't be recovered, so it may be just my own frustration and disappointment. I'd like to know better what the world was like before Christianity "triumphed." — Ciceronianus

I have hope that there must be a simpler way to come to terms with one's Christian past than figuring out what the world was like before Christianity "triumphed."

You attitude towards trans people is unethical, callous and shallow. — Banno

Yours has been, toward me, from the beginning.
You deserve a hundred more Scotties.

You would refuse to allow trans folk to express their identity. You are imposing your preconceptions of sexuality and gender on others, creating "society and social norms exist and must be obeyed when it pleases you". So are you a hypocrite or just incapable of clear thinking? — Banno

You just want things to be politically correct and shallow. That pays your salary or something?

"Their identity". We're at a philosophy forum. Identity is a construct.

Also, since we're at a philosophy forum, there's that about getting to know the other person's position first before criticizing it, rather than jumping the gun.

Is baseball a popular sport in your country? — Joshs

No. Soccer is, but we have no "you kick like a girl".

Not a neurological problem, and not clumsiness. Rather, a perceptual-affective style that differs along a masculine-feminine spectrum. That is, the issue isn’t with the arm, the stance, the coordination. It is with a primordial level of perceptual processing. That is why such a wide range of behaviors ( speech pronunciation, posture, walk, throwing, general bodily comportment, response to stimuli) all are involved and tied together as gender-associated via primordial perceptual-affective style which one is born with.

To understand this is to understand why we recognize a different behavioral style in male vs female dogs and cats.

I don't buy this.

I've had cats for almost forty years, males and females, intact and sterilized, but I wouldn't ascribe the differences in behavior to their biological sex. Sure, I'm talking about a sample of altogether about twenty cats, which isn't much, but still. I would ascribe the differences primarily due to size, physical fitness, position in the hierarchy, past experiences of the animal with humans and other animals, character of their owners and upbringing style.

(I know a family that has had German shepherds for years, males and females. All their dogs were the same, regardless of age, size, and sex. All the same aggressiveness and superiority, just like their owners.)

Rather, a perceptual-affective style that differs along a masculine-feminine spectrum.

I know people say this, but it's not clear it is possible to actually empirically prove it. One thing I find most striking about many women nowadays, esp. the younger ones, is that they are so much like what would normally be regarded as male. Rough, stiff, voice in a lower registry, no waist, aggressive, unkind.

Many people nowadays have poor posture and poor gait. This is due to a lot of factors, notably, little exercise (so weak, short muscles and tendons, thus poorer coordination and suboptimal movement), cheap shoes (that force the person to pronate), and tight clothes. I see this in men and in women.

The point is that my natural tendency to throw the ball like a girl is related to my natural
tendency to walk in a feminine way, to speak in a way that has feminine characteristics, to have a bodily posture and comportment that tends in the same direction. — Joshs

Or, alternatively, you just feel ashamed, self-conscious. Over a long period of time, this can result in a kind of rigidity of bodily movements, with a lesser range of movement, less physical exertion, which then indeed "looks feminine".

Indeed, women are often taught to feel ashamed of themselves and to be self-conscious, but that doesn't make those traits and their physiological expression "feminine".

Yes, children, ordinary or "trans", killing themselves because of other people's bad faith.
I wonder how many people you drove into misery with your bad faith.

Far too much of antiquity is lost to us, unfortunately. — Ciceronianus

Why unfortunately? We can fight, too.

A degree of interpretive freedom is not necessarily relativism. — Wayfarer

You granted me no such freedom.

One problem is that a balanced, measured response can be too quickly labeled an attack. — Fooloso4

That's why they say that one shouldn't talk about religion and politics in polite society. Add philosophy to that.
If you want polite society, ditch talk of religion, politics, and philosophy.

I still think it's dangerous to simply say that all religions point to the same goal, but then, Jesus did say 'In my Father's house there are many mansions' which could be interpreted to support a rather pluralist idea. — Wayfarer

And he also said that many are called but few are chosen.

Correct. — Apollodorus

We all know humility is your forte.

Well, we can't let you have all the fun, can we? And as a Buddhist, you ought perhaps to be less self-centered ....

I've said several times in open forums what my stance on Buddhism is, and I told you specifically so in a PM. But you choose to ignore all that, and instead callously insist on ascribing to me stances I don't hold. Clearly, you're not interested in having an actual conversation, but are only trying to get a rise out of me by hitting me where it hurts. So typically spiritual.

Christians should put their money where their mouth is, or be made to do so.
So they say they are sooo speshal and they have the most powerful entity in the Universe on their side and they will go to heaven, happy forever, while the rest of us will suffer in hell, doomed. Okay then, if God is with them, who can be against them, right?

↪baker So that is what you think trans folk are like? That is what you would base your opinion on?

Is yours an argument to refuse to acknowledge the existence of trans people, or for improvements in the prison system? — Banno

One against political correctness.

The "fault" is with folk such as you who are overly concerned with the contents of other people's underpants. You are the reason nearly half of transexual children have attempted suicide. Your attitude is the reason for the abominable statistics on the treatment of trans folk.

So for you, society and social norms exist and must be obeyed when it pleases you, and should be regarded as non-existent and discarded when it doesn't please you, eh?

You are the reason nearly half of transexual children have attempted suicide. Your attitude is the reason for the abominable statistics on the treatment of trans folk.

No, yours is, your bad faith, and your ascribing to people stances they don't hold. Fuck you for this.

I think this is what annoys me; the irony of a sort of fundamentalist proselytizing against the Christian myth. — Noble Dust

Fire is fought with fire.

lenty of men tried to teach me to throw like a guy. I spent hours trying to teach myself. I was desperate to get rid of such ‘feminine’ traits but it worked out about as well as that John Wayne scene from La Cage Aux Folles. — Joshs

I don't see that as "feminine", but as physically clumsy, perhaps even a neurological problem or otherwise poor eye-body coordination. A problem that is not limited to either sex.

Also, in my native language, an idiomatic phrase like "you throw like a girl" doesn't exist.

So where does trans fit in here? I think the idea that one must change one’s body to fit one’s psychological gender is only necessary in a culture which
believes that behavior should match genitalia according to rigid norms. — Joshs

Then the fault is with the trans people.

In a society which has no such belief , one is free to recognize that body sex and psychological gender are inextricably intertwined such that it becomes incoherent to claim that one was born in the wrong body.

Many people are simply spoiled and want to be speshal, want to be adored. Just before, I saw a feature about a Spanish (?) singer, currently still a biological male who dresses as a woman and who will have his Adam's apple removed next month. Why? He says it's to have a more feminine voice, and then with the hormone therapy, to have long hair, etc.
This is simply vanity and having too much money.

That's why Hitler can come into rule.

If she believes all the surgeries she's been through are worth it and she's happier as the result, why should your concerns be her concerns? — Hanover

There is no society. There are only individuals.
There are no social norms.

What do you suppose “choose reality”’ refers to? Just the issues that are highlighted of aggression toward women by men deliberately masquerading as females? Or do you suppose this includes a denial of the idea that psychological gender doesn’t necessarily match biological sex? — Joshs

You'd have to ask the makers of that poster.

Or do you suppose this includes a denial of the idea that psychological gender doesn’t necessarily match biological sex?

Psychological gender is a cluster of traits, but which traits in particular those are for which gender varies from culture to culture, from setting to setting. The same trait can sometimes be considered male, other times, female, or childish.

My point here is that all the concerns for safety and whatever other issues you wish to throw out seem pretextual, meaning I really don't think you have these concerns as much as you have a desire not to accommodate people who you believe are irrational and cuckoo. — Hanover

Your bad faith is duly noted, as usual.

But they go to such great lengths in their efforts to make of Christianity what they want it to be, what they find to be intellectually acceptable, that Jesus, as portrayed in Scripture, seems less and less recognizable. — Ciceronianus

It's their religion, they can do with it whatever they want.

A part of it to me is that I don't think how you perform sex acts or who you perform them with is so integral to the person that it ought be who we think that person is. Unless I'm going to be having sex that person, it seems pretty irrelevant whether the person is gay, straight, or anywhere else on the spectrum. — Hanover

For you as a man it probably matters little whether you share a hospital room with a man or a woman. Or whether the person in the dressing booth next to yours is a man or a woman.
Perhaps you also wouldn't mind peeing while standing next to a woman, the way you don't mind peeing while standing next to a man?

Clearly categorizable gender/sexual identity (ie. a person is either male or female) provides a modicum of shared privacy in public spaces occupied by more people. Arguably, this shared privacy is important to many people for a general sense of safety.

Still overly concerned as to the contents of other folk's underwear, I see. — Banno

One of the functions of gender/sexual identity is that categorizing people based on it should provide a modicum of safety in certain settings where people are highly vulnerable, such as schools, hospitals, prisons.

How do I know that I can't comprehend God? — Zebeden

Other people tell you so, and you're supposed to believe them.

Because they are Christians. There is no Christianity without Jesus _Christ_.
— baker

One would think so. And the answer may be that they're "stuck" with him if they want to be known as Christians. But I think that the Jesus of the Gospels is largely ignored by them (just as the God of the Old Testament, that fractious fellow, is ignored). They just don't fit in the theology they construct, or if they fit do so awkwardly. They're embarrassing, in fact, if Scripture is is to be believed as it is written. — Ciceronianus

They were first and foremost, Christians, and then they began concerning themselves with doctrinal issues, if at all.

First comes a generalized religious/spiritual identity, and then, if at all, a look at the doctrinal tenets of said religion/spirituality.

So always telling the truth to the point you're avoiding white lies, makes for a better person. — Benkei

That depends on what those truths are in particular.
If one is creative enough, one can always say things that are both true and harmless (and on topic, at that).

Ok. That shit wasn’t the question, though. Read the last part which contains a question. — Cobra

Same reply: Normal people figure this out by kindergarten.
The topic of truthtelling is one that becomes progressively elusive the more one tries to pin it down analytically. So the optimal way to handle it is the intuitive one.

Most people can't handle the truth, so they do not want to hear it. — Cobra

No. That's just a reference to a punchline from a film, nothing more.

Saying ugly things harms the relationship between the people involved. People typically want to retain their relationships or don't want them to worsen (insofar they think they are good).

By saying something ugly (even if it's true), you don't hurt the other person's feelings per se, you hurt their feelings for you. Or even hurt their feelings for humanity.

Of course, perhaps this is what you wanted to begin with.

For starters, perhaps something like this, from the film The Martian:

I've been thinking about laws on Mars. There's an international treaty saying that no country can lay claim to anything that's not on Earth. By another treaty if you're not in any country's territory, maritime law aplies. So Mars is international waters. Now, NASA is an American non-military organization, it owns the Hab. But the second I walk outside I'm in international waters. So Here's the cool part. I'm about to leave for the Schiaparelli Crater where I'm going to commandeer the Ares IV lander. Nobody explicitly gave me permission to do this, and they can't until I'm on board the Ares IV. So I'm going to be taking a craft over in international waters without permission, which by definition... makes me a pirate. Mark Watney: Space Pirate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiralty_law

And again from the same film:

They say once you grow crops somewhere, you have officially “colonized” it. So technically, I colonized Mars.

I don't see overpopulation as a problem. — Metaphysician Undercover

Death by exposure would become fashionable again.

As if there were a single uniform interpretation of the Christian gospel. History says otherwise. — Wayfarer

One has to maintain that there is a single uniform interpretation of this or that in religion/spirituality, otherwise one couldn't accuse others of having a "religious complex".
You yourself don't embrace the relativism that you espouse.

The Jesus of the Gospels seems disposable. Why do they bother with Jesus? This is my question. — Ciceronianus

Because they are Christians. There is no Christianity without Jesus _Christ_.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

And I think this brings us to the crux of the matter, because a lot of your statements seem to suggest that you haven’t yet decided in favor of truth and that despite your apparent disclaimers you are speaking from the perspective of someone who is at least in part psychologically committed to Buddhism as a belief system or religion. — Apollodorus

*tsk tsk*

Again, one could argue that only Buddhists are capable of attaining the highest possible experience. But this hasn’t been demonstrated to be the case. So, the way I see it, it boils down to personal (and unproven) belief, i.e., exactly what Socrates and Plato (and, apparently, Buddha himself) are warning against.

Blimey, religious/spiritual people competing as to who is most exalted!! How ordinary.

And to achieve that, one need not be a Buddhist or follow any particular religious system .... — Apollodorus

To _deliberately_ achieve anything, one needs to follow a system. To follow a religious system, one has to become a member of a religion.